Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Adventurers (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   General Armor and Weapons As Mustering Out Benefits (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=39978)

Condottiere April 23rd, 2019 06:30 PM

Offence and defence tend to even out at their technological levels; it should be gauss weapons versus combat armour.

Game mechanicswise, the default advanced combat rifle round has the same damage potential as the default assault rifle round, with an eighty percent increase in effective range, a kilogramme lighter, presumably a faster rate of fire and lighter ammunition.

nobby-w April 23rd, 2019 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whartung (Post 601023)
[ . . . ]
Even with military electronics, there's likely no need for a 50 year shelf life on it.

IBM guarantees parts for 40 years for their mainframe products, and DEC used to use manufacturing techniques designed for avionics to produce components for the VAX. You can make electronics with a nice, long shelf life if you want to spend money.

Capacitors are really what craps out most of the time, although this can vary with the type of capacitor. Whether a battery could be made to last that long is another problem. Modern batteries don't have that long a shelf life although there is research in progress into nano-material based technologies that could radically increase the shelf and service life of lithium cells.

Having said this, a conventional projectile weapon is purely mechanical, and ammunition technology has allowed it to have shelf lives of half a century or more while still remaining viable. One could argue that with current technology we don't really have a pressing need to go with radically different technology than we have now - maybe bigger and more powerful if some significant improvement in body armour technology becomes widespread.

However, if something equivalent to TL11 combat armour were come onto the market, then you could (per Striker) armour infantry with something equivalent to 20mm of RHA. With current armour piercing technology (if you take something like a .50 cal SLAP round as a benchmark) then you might need a rifle with a muzzle energy in the 10kJ range to be effective against that type of armour. Better armour piercing tech might bring that down a bit.

At that point you've got a disruptive innovation that needs something better. Perhaps a gauss rifle that can fire a lighter projectile at higher velocities. Maybe superdense materials could be used to make the penetrators of such ammunition. If you go down that route you've still got to make a rifle that can be deployed in the field and stored and serviced with reasonably practical logistics. Problems of shelf life would have to be solved for whatever technology was employed.

kilemall April 23rd, 2019 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condottiere (Post 601054)
I donno.

I'm beginning to doubt it's efficacy.

In game mechanic effects, it's slightly less effective than a Survivalist round, basically a twenty two long rifle, and apparently, our laws of war outlaw high explosive smallarms ammunition.


Outlaws em on planets, not ships.


Ships that have planetary bombardment missiles and lasers, mind you.

kilemall April 23rd, 2019 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condottiere (Post 601073)
Offence and defence tend to even out at their technological levels; it should be gauss weapons versus combat armour.

Game mechanicswise, the default advanced combat rifle round has the same damage potential as the default assault rifle round, with an eighty percent increase in effective range, a kilogramme lighter, presumably a faster rate of fire and lighter ammunition.


Hmm, Striker has the Gauss being not much more of a penetrator over ACR but putting on one helluva personal machine gun at great ranges, twice as much ammo per clip, and mostly equal to the assault rifle's best damage at 3-5x the range.



Big part of why I prefer the Striker mechanics over CT or others, that range thing matters both in pen and damage.


The 'sleeper' ability of the ACR is in that HE round against just cloth/CES or less equipped opponents. I guess the Geneva Convention is over with by TL10.

RandyB April 23rd, 2019 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kilemall (Post 601079)
Hmm, Striker has the Gauss being not much more of a penetrator over ACR but putting on one helluva personal machine gun at great ranges, twice as much ammo per clip, and mostly equal to the assault rifle's best damage at 3-5x the range.



Big part of why I prefer the Striker mechanics over CT or others, that range thing matters both in pen and damage.


The 'sleeper' ability of the ACR is in that HE round against just cloth/CES or less equipped opponents. I guess the Geneva Convention is over with by TL10.

Historically, treaties have not outlasted their signatories. No reason to believe that will change in any projected future.

Grav_Moped April 24th, 2019 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kilemall (Post 601079)
Hmm, Striker has the Gauss being not much more of a penetrator over ACR but putting on one helluva personal machine gun at great ranges, twice as much ammo per clip, and mostly equal to the assault rifle's best damage at 3-5x the range.



Big part of why I prefer the Striker mechanics over CT or others, that range thing matters both in pen and damage.


The 'sleeper' ability of the ACR is in that HE round against just cloth/CES or less equipped opponents. I guess the Geneva Convention is over with by TL10.

Nope. You simply don't target personnel with HE rounds. What you do is target something inanimate behind them, and if they happen to get in the way, they're collateral damage. Regrettable of course, but legal. Works for WP and napalm ('scuse me -- it's "Incindi-gel" now) too.

They're legal for anti-materiel use, but illegal for anti-personnel use.

kilemall April 24th, 2019 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grav_Moped (Post 601088)
Nope. You simply don't target personnel with HE rounds. What you do is target something inanimate behind them, and if they happen to get in the way, they're collateral damage. Regrettable of course, but legal. Works for WP and napalm ('scuse me -- it's "Incindi-gel" now) too.

They're legal for anti-materiel use, but illegal for anti-personnel use.


Hmm, well I am postulating a more or less spacefaring version of the current nationalities IMTU, with treaties still in play and one of the major story lines is someone IS making ACR HE rounds out in the Cloud and someone is planning to use them at some point. So it's an actual story line hence my focus on direct anti-personnel use.

Condottiere April 24th, 2019 09:16 AM

In war, hollow point is illegal as well.

Not for law enforcement.

Also, how effective are ten millimetre slugs at I believe one hundred fifty metres per second?

kilemall April 24th, 2019 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condottiere (Post 601097)
In war, hollow point is illegal as well.

Not for law enforcement.

Also, how effective are ten millimetre slugs at I believe one hundred fifty metres per second?


I assume you are referring to snub pistol rounds, yes?


LE at least in the US can use hollow point, it has both that stopping power long as the target isn't armored and it is less likely to penetrate walls very far. The treaty limits are more for rifle rounds that are going to lay on one heck of a hurting. I have Striker rules for that in my CT thread.
So yes, snub pistols are more a 'ship security' weapon, it's range problems make it less then ideal for combat anyway. So it might get a pass on Geneva type limitations.


Hmm, gets me thinking- perhaps the correct form factor for the Accelerator round is a pistol.
You don't have recoil or increased range/power from a longer barrel, so doesn't matter that you put a rifle-sized round in a pistol frame. Just fewer rounds and maybe a little less range accuracy, same rifle pen at long range function.
Yes, seems to work like an SMG but longer range punch and zero-G advantage, at the expense of vulnerability close in.

wellis April 24th, 2019 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grav_Moped (Post 601088)
Nope. You simply don't target personnel with HE rounds. What you do is target something inanimate behind them, and if they happen to get in the way, they're collateral damage. Regrettable of course, but legal. Works for WP and napalm ('scuse me -- it's "Incindi-gel" now) too.

They're legal for anti-materiel use, but illegal for anti-personnel use.

Isn't that actually a misconception, like the claim that .50 explosive bullets are illegal to use against enemy personnel?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.